Part of what I wanted to communicate in these earlier posts (esp. to people who might be pissed off with MaCleans etc. for publishing allegedly offensive material like Steyn's) is that there are other, less controversial and maybe more effective ways of expressing your displeasure than via HRC complaints. Comparisons to C-10 aside, we should all agree that, if we ever figure out what "offensive" means, we should be able to call a magazine like Macleans for being offensive if they're doing it on the government dime.

More generally, there ought to be at least a set of methods of protest which both Right And Left can agree are legitimate. So for example: boycotts. If pro-lifers can actually convince Disney to be less Gay-centric by refusing to visit Disneyland, and thus causing Disney to hemorage profits, more power to them. Same with picketing: If Mo Elasmry's bunch could dig up forty Muslims to wave placards in front of the Rogers building, they would get far more positive coverage for their cause, and far less media hassles, than channeling their aggression through HRCs.

When such methods are employed, the whole argument that "you are trying to silence debate" becomes irrelevant. OF COURSE I AM TRYING TO SILENCE DEBATE. I personally would have Macleans sack Steyn and hire someone that finished highschool (I, for example, am available). But the point is: there ought to be some common ground on which means are legitimate for accomplishing this end.

Cutting MacLeans PAP funding seems to me to be one of these legitimate means.An interesting tidbit from the Shotgun Comments section:

In the final days of the Citizens Centre Report (the final incarnation of Alberta/BC/Western Report), the decision was made to reject this funding. The magazine went out of business just a few months later.The rejection didn't put the magazine under, but it didn't help. The argument for accepting the funds had long been that the magazine would put itself at a competitive disadvantage by ripping up the cheque. That is, if all other magazines were accepting the money (as they did), we would be tying a millstone around our necks by not accepting the money too.As well, it could also be argued that, in light of the fact the government took large amounts of money from us in the form of taxes, accepting the Heritage money was simply a matter of getting back some of the money that was ours to start with.The Western Standard, by the way, accepted the grant money: $132,000 in 2006-07, for example. See: http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pap/pubs/report-rapport/annualreport2007/7_e.cfmTerry O'Neill

Professor Jones said that the study lends support to the idea that a period of global cooling occurred later during the mid-twentieth century as a result of sulphate aerosols being released during the 1950s with the rise of industrial output. These sulphates tended to cut sunlight, counteracting global warming caused by rising carbon dioxide.

"This finding supports the sulphates argument, because it was bit hard to explain how they could cause the period of cooling from 1945, when industrial production was still relatively low," Professor Jones said.

So I guess that means the next movie my wife drags me off to see will be "Sex In The City". Apparently, there were no guys at the London Premiere, except a few that looked too hot to be straight. I'm thinking of going disguised in a wig and a dress so people who see me in the lineup won't think I'm gay. I'll probably shave first.

Do any cars blow up? Is there any machine gun fire? A villain with weird hair and a cool scar? Somebody help me.

Despite what you might have heard, the folks at FreeD booted me off their forum last year for writing about "Wild" Bill Whatcott, whose anti-abortion activism has earned him several arrests over the years and a brief stint in an Ontario prison. In 2002, Bill protested outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Saskatchewan. As a result The Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses found him guilty of professional misconduct, suspended him as a nurse, and ordered him to pay $15,000 in legal costs.

Bill fought back, and his case has been wending its way through the court system ever since. Well, yesterday Bill tasted of sweet vindication. The Supreme Court of Canada chose not to hear an appeal of a lower court decision that found that Bill not guilty of these charges:

Azhdarchid's were pterosaurs. In fact they include the largest pterosaurs--standing 2.5 meters tall and with a wing-span of 10 meters. (See picture above left, of Azhdarchid eyeing soft, pathetic human.) To date, however, reconstructing their lifestyle has been difficult:

...among their prey were hatchling sauropods! Now, for some scale here, the "babies" in the picture would probably be the size of a Great Dane, and our pterosaurs look to be sucking 'em back like oysters! Slurp! One gulp and gone, no need to even chew! (I think these particular pterosaurs were toothless anyway!)

And the best part? Although Azhdarchids made a living as ground hunters, Darren writes:

In fact of all the magazines supported it is the single largest recipient of such assistance...

Except that there are rules, see? PAP is not supposed to fund magazine publishing "offensive" material. And, to find out how one might raise a complaint against Macleans on this basis, I emailed Heritage Canada. Yesterday, I received their response:

Good morning... [BigCityLib]:

This is in reply to your e-mail of May 12, 2008, regarding your concerns and comments about the article entitled "The future belongs to Islam" published in Maclean’s magazine October 2006. The Publications Assistance Program – Applicant’s Guide, page 6, states the following:

magazines are not eligible for postal subsidy if they are: that in the view of Canadian Heritage, contain material considered to be hate propaganda, sexual exploitation, excessive or gratuitous violence, denigration of an identifiable group or an any other way offensive.If you would like to register a complaint under these guidelines, you may write to the Minister of Canadian Heritage at the following address: House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6. You may also contact the Minister through our departmental Web site at http://www.pch.gc.ca/pc-ch/min/verner/contact/index_e.cfm. We also suggest you consider writing to the Ontario Press Council, as this organization has media accountability mechanisms in place. Furthermore, you may wish to consider writing to Maclean’s magazine to communicate your concerns directly.

Should you have further questions, please contact Céline Boucher at 819-997-5249 or at 819-997-9221.

Now, I'm not saying "take this route". But its probably something not thought-of much previously. And I would argue that, while we may disagree over the limits of Free Speech, we can certainly, all of us, Conservative or Liberal, agree that publications spreading general offensiveness ought to be forking out for their own postage. Its just so Capitalist. Make Kenneth Whyte and Paul Wells and Andrew Coyne lick their own goddamn stamps!

PS. Other things you might try include approaching the Ontario Press Council (although I thought I read somewhere that Macleans, as well as the Natty Post, don't recognize such Councils as authoritative). Or you might just try and scare up enough like-minded Muslims to picket the Rogers building. Picketing can work just fine. Witness how Soharwardy extracted a grovelling apology from the Western Standard.

Word is, all staff exposure to issues re sexuality will be funneled exclusively through sanctioned Conservative Party sources, which is to say Maxine Bernier's new duties will now include teaching Tory MPs and aides about the dangerous world that lies beneath a woman's petticoats. No word on whether he will demonstrate "The Venus Butterfly".

As I argued several months back, The Cadman Scandal in and of itself was likely to precipitate the death of several controversial Tory initiatives that might be used as election triggers, one of these being bill C-46, which would have ended the Canadian Wheat Board's barley monopoly . Well, with Cadmania history but several other scandals unfolding, this prediction seems to be coming true.

Basically, the Tories have placed their bill so low on the parliamentary agenda that it will never reach the debate stage. Furthermore, earlier threats to make C-46 a confidence measure appear to have evaporated:

Martin said he would not rule out the possibility of seeing C-46 turned into a confidence motion, meaning failure to pass the bill in Parliament would bring down the government and trigger a federal election.

[A] Conservative spokesperson declined to comment on the whether or not that is something the government is considering.

Compare that to this bit of bluster in March from agriculture minister Gerry Ritz and you can see how far the Tories have fallen.

My advice to the opposition parties? Follow the ways of the noble Komodo Dragon, which bites its prey once, and then may pursue it for days while it slowly weakens and bleeds to death. Patience, brothers and sisters, patience!

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

...while in the ROC we get crap about falsely billed election expenses. A bug in her bed? Next on the agenda can only be a sex tape. Be especially embarrassing if in it former foreign minister Maxime Bernier is...alone!

Steve ("the poll guy") V. at Far and Wide has been writing extensively about how Dion's environmental proposals might play out in the political arena. Read this post especially, in which he makes a case that the fact that opinion seems to be swinging the Libs way at the moment is all part of some brilliant strategy. I myself think its just good luck (and esp. some bad moves by Jack Layton), but admittedly the result is the same.

Not that things might not change. Paying a tax in the abstract is always easier than paying it in the real world.

Probably best not to call it a "tax", though not really a plan yet, either, just the shadow of one. But whatever. Stephen Gordon is a professor of economics at l'Université Laval in Quebec City, Canada. Its all a good read, but he is especially cutting with respect to Jack Layton's reaction.

On Jack's support of "cap-and-trade" over a carbon tax:

As far as the consumer is concerned, cap-and-trade will have exactly the same effect as a carbon tax, namely, to increase prices. The only potential difference is who is on the receiving end of that extra spending: with a carbon tax, the government gets the money, and with cap-and-trade, that money is rent for those who own the permits. If the permits are auctioned off by the government, the two programs are essentially equivalent.

How true, how true.

On Jack's claim that "big corporations" should bear the lion's share of Canada's climate-change tab, and that there should be a federal ombudsman should ensure those costs aren't passed on to consumers.

Could someone please explain to Jack Layton that corporations don't pay taxes? Only people pay taxes, and corporations are not people. And the people who pay corporate taxes are not the owners of the corporation, either: the people who really pay those taxes are workers (in the form of reduced employment opportunities) and consumers (in the form of higher prices).The Liberals and Conservatives understand this point. The CPC is targeting the people who don't want to pay those costs, and Stéphane Dion is going after those who do. The NDP's niche appears to be voters who want someone else to pay the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Also true, but I think Jack Layton does understand this. He also understands that a federal ombudsman can only ensure that costs are not passed on to consumers is if he has secret magical powers. Jack is simply pandering to the common sentiment: Don't tax me, don't tax thee, tax the man behind the tree.By the way, Mr. Gordon's blog title, "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative", is considered by some to be the "most boring headline that could possibly be imagined". Quite clever, in this context.

1) Harper's new chief of staff Guy Giorno kicked ass against a ragged looking Toronto Star. Here he successfully objects to the claim that his "underlings" named him "Rasputin" when he was with the Mike Harris Tories. Here he successfully argues that the Star's apology for the whole "Rasputin" naming affair should have been labelled a "correction" rather than a "clarification".

Don't screw around with this guy. He's obviously a political killer.

(As an aside, why would anyone object to being nicknamed "Rasputin"? I'm 45 and people still call me "Mikey". His nickname is way better, IMHO!)

getting tossed. Not bad! Rage against 'em, Mo! (But, Mo, lay off them Israelis--that stuff makes you look crazy and gives the CIC a bad name! In fact, I would strongly suggest stepping down and handing the CIC over to someone less inflammatory! )

And a low-light:

6) Life Canada President Joanne Byfield failed in her only attempt, her complaint:

Friday, May 23, 2008

(Anyway, if Dion were to quit, as some have suggested, who would replace him? Or would there have to be another long-drawn-out, draining leadership campaign leaving the party rudderless and broke for another two years? Yeah, that would be fun)

Oddly enough, it didn't have to be like this. Back in December, Connie and Mark announced that they had hired a well-respected Ottawa lawyer named Kenneth Bickley but it appears that he is no longer involved in the case.

Its business apparently cannibalized by the success of its own free paper, it isn't surprising that the Sun might be looking to downsize. But this Toronto Star article says no decision has been made as to whether their staff will stay in the building as tenants or relocate. Mind you, the Sun management is also claiming that the sale of the building is only being "considered"; well, if its already in this database I'd say the decision has been made already.

By the way, the Urbandb website looks like a definite bookmark. It aims to be

The full report is here in English, here in French. I haven't read it but the papers make it sound pretty common sense. No hijab ban, thank goodness, although Judges etc. may not be allowed to wear (any kind of(?)) religious symbols.

I'm going to try and read the thing tonight and have an opinion on it by tomorrow.

By the way, the official estimate of the crowd size at this year's event is a little less than that of Ms. Douglas: "approximately 7,000" according to the Ottawa Sun. While the numbers of participants in the Global Marijuana March, held the same week, sky-rocketed to 20,000.

Obviously, a few of the souls noted by Ms. Douglas wandered off to smoke a fatty.

It would be even more hilarious if he was an ex-Tory minister but, unfortunately, Hellyer's a Pearson era Defense Minister, and this is his second appearance at X-Fest.

For more on the Exo-Politics Institute, which funds X-Fest, try this, or check out their website.

For more on the "exo-politics" promoted by Paul and the gang, especially in its Canadian context, see this post in which Exo Politics Toronto PR guy Victor Viggiani asks Excellency Governor General of Canada Michaëlle Jean to come clean re the cover-up.

She tells him to take his concerns to CSIS.

Update: Ti-guy notes that Hellyer was Defense Minister for Pearson, not Trudeau, as the post originally stated.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Dennis Gruending was raised by monks and later served as MP for the New Democrats. He writes the Pulpit and Politics blog, which offers a kind-of sociological take on the intersection of politics and religion in Canada.

My wife and I visited the National Gallery of Canada on Saturday, and I have to admit that I came away from the place a little bit disappointed. There was too much stuff I wasn't interested in, too little stuff that I liked. A bit boring, in other words

For example, I couldn't find a single piece by Emily Carr, and I've never been impressed by the other members of "The Gang of Seven". It's like they spent their entire artistic careers painting the same tree.

And Barnett Newman's painting "Voice of Fire" really does look like it was done with a roller. I spent months arguing with philistines about this work when the controversy first raged, and now I have to admit that the philistines were right. "Oooh! The Intensity of the colours!" sophisticated people said but, frankly, the colours are similar enough to the scheme used by the New York Giants to seem suspicious.

Somewhere, Barnett Newman is passed out face down with an empty bottle of absinthe and a fistful of Canadian Taxpayers' dollars in his hand.

He painted great nekkid nymphs and his models looked exactly like my old secretary, Dorothy. Exceedingly hot in a typically English way: small breasts, horsey hips. I mentioned the resemblance to Dorothy once and wound up doing eight weeks of sensitivity training.

In any case, there wasn't a single Waterhouse or, as far as I could make out, a single Pre-Raphaelite of any variety (they all painted hot nymphs).

And what's with the ghastly 1,000 year old picture frames? Braque, Picasso, Leger...these painters were interested in deconstructing the very act of perception, yet their paintings are rimmed around with fat little cherubs blowing trumpets. I DON'T think they would have approved.

Not that there weren't a few cool items. The Pollack heading the post, for example: its a small one, done on glass. And I have always liked Mondrian (below, who always insisted that his work be displayed sans frame) even though I suppose one could ask what's the real difference between him and someone like Newman, the answer being that Mondrian doesn't suck.

They also had one of Joseph Cornell's boxes, although I accidentally deleted my picture of it, and it was a crap picture anyway. (Note: Cornell bulks large in William Gibson's Count Zero)

Monday, May 19, 2008

Re. the state of "hacked wifi" affair, in which CHRC employees used space-age technology in order to gain access to the wireless network of Nelly Hechme and visit neo-Nazi websites anonymously when they could have just crossed the street and done it from Starbucks.

After a month looking at the file, the Ottawa police have decided that its all really a matter for the RCMP (warning: link to Lemire). Guess we're looking at another whole month until the whole thing gets tossed.

Sunday, May 18, 2008

I've already told the tale of how I weaseled my way onto the latest incarnation of the Oregon Petition in this post. It was easy. I read a couple of papers on glaciology, made up a bunch of sciency sounding nonsense in a letter I wrote Dr. Arthur Robinson, and bingo! in a couple of weeks was sent a copy of the petition, which I then signed and mailed back.

Well, the new version of the petition will be published on Monday and, unless my copy went astray in the mail, I expect to have joined 31,000 other scientists in "rejecting claims of human-caused global warming".

Obviously, I did not use my real name on the petition. I won't give the name I actually did use, but here's a hint: I stayed away from my usual favorites. So, no Dr. Eric Von Dickenstein. And no Haywood J. Blome. I also did not sign the petition as Professor P.P. Weiner, because Professor P.P. is actually real, and in fact edited several volumes on Canada's nuclear weapons policy (along with J.M. Careless!) back in the 1980s.

For I would not wish to sully Mr. Weiner's reputation by associating him with such a low endeavour as the Oregon Petition.

Update: It appears I made the list. I signed the card "Michael F. Murphy" (real name Michael J.) and there indeed is one such on the petition. On the other hand, I don't recall adding "MD" after my name, or anything for that matter, but my handwriting is notoriously horrible and they may have misinterpreted a flourish. (note: the "X" I write on the petition in the original post was done on a photocopy created for the purpose.)

Further Update: I am attempting to confirm with the Oregon Institute that the signature is indeed my own.

Update to Further Update: Alas, the Michael F. Murphy on the petition is not my signature, according to A.B. Robinson. So I suppose for total accuracy's sake I should say that I was invited to sign the petition, though my name did not appear on the final list. I wondered if something had gone wrong with the letter containing my petition card when the further cards I asked for did not arrive. I would assume the postie who got assigned my mail was unable to read my handwriting.

But not to worry. You can be your own fake scientist. The Oregon Institute has put their petition online here, though you still have to send it back to them snail-mail Be sure to tell them what your "specialized scientific experience" is.

As for me, I'll be trying again to make it on the next go round.

(And of course my main point still holds: You sign your name to the petition, tell what your degree is supposed to be in, and mail the petition in. That's the entire extent of the screening.)

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Went into The Astrolab yesterday, an rare book/print store, and picked up a nifty map of Ottawa-area used book stores. I then asked where I could find booze for sale, and the directions I was given wound me up in front of the Parliament Buildings. Did I mis-hear or is this Ottawa humor? There was definitely no LCBO there.

Also, so far we've found two lists of secret charges the Marriot levies if you don't explicitly decline the service. Can anyone with experience of these places tell me whether there is a third list that I should be looking out for, maybe stuffed under the mattress somewhere? (They even charge $1.50 for the Saturday Globe.)

Kinsella's recent post on Dion's carbon tax proposal has made more than a few waves. You can find it here. I thought I would juxtapose it with an analysis by Canadian climate scientist Simon Donner (click on link for the entire piece):

Is there a better time to redirect federal tax code to stress fuels, rather than income? The signals are all pointing in that direction. Cars are outselling trucks and SUVs for the first time in years. Goldman Sachs reported this week that oil could reach $150 to $200 a barrel. Public transit usage is on the rise. A carbon tax on transportation and heating fuels would only further nudge our economy towards higher energy efficiency and lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Most importantly, even if 100% revenue neutral the tax will allow the government the political room to direct revenues to programs to further invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy and new technologies.As for the politics: evidence from the US primaries, where Hillary Clinton's obvious pandering over a gas tax holiday appears to have sunk what was left of her presidential campaign, [suggests] that people do appreciate honest on the complex issues of today. Dion is in the strange position of being seen by Canadians as "weak, uninspiring and unintelligible" but still more likable than PM Stephen Harper. Voters across the spectrum might just respect Dion more for making seemingly risky and groundbreaking political move of pushing for a carbon tax.I can't say that reading Warren's piece didn't stoke some doubts in me. His profession, after all, is political strategy, so if he says an idea is crap you have to give the opinion some weight. But I wonder if he isn't working from a political play book that's a few years out of date. For example, I don't believe for one minute that talking environmental issues tags you as an lefty urbanite. We can all see what's happening to our arctic, and I think Canadians are beginning to understand this as a security issue (maybe our most important security issue), not just a matter of saving a few cute polar bears.

Furthermore, I rather think the cry of "too complex for the Canadian people" lets people like Warren off the hook as strategists. If a political party is developing an agricultural policy, for example, everyone involved in the production of that policy (from wonks to communicators) is expected to know enough about it to push the policy and counter the attacks. AGW as a political issue, though, is genuinely new, and I have a feeling alot of the resistance to the Carbon Tax proposal is about teaching old dogs new tricks. Its, like, another thing to learn... Well, tough nuts. From this day forward political types are going to have to start boning up on Carbon Markets and cloud feedbacks, and will be expected to know as much about that as they do about the history of The Wheat Board (or whatever). Simply accepting the Tory political spin that this will drive up fuel prices, as Warren does in spite of the fact that all Dion's pronouncements on the matter have made clear that the tax will not apply to gasoline, doesn't cut it. Its lazy. Its giving up before the fight has begun.

And just to rephrase Mr. Donner's last bit: we've got all sorts of people within the Liberal Party (Warren among them) saying "The party can't run away forever! Let's got to an election campaign!", but without really say much about what the Libs positive platform is supposed to be. Now that some (fairly bold) policy is starting to emerge, they're running away from the policy! Well, what then is the policy to be? We'll bring gas prices down? Nobody will believe that, and it can't be done! Or how about promising daycare for all? But, how many times have they done that already?

Okay, so maybe they've got a point on that one. I could never condone kissing Willie Nelson.

As for the Starbucks logo, it definitely does NOT make me hot. You'd think a mermaid, having to swim around all day, would be a bit more toned in the upper body. This particular fish chick looks downright flabby.

PS. I'm off to the nation's capital for the next couple of days. However, I will be taking the laptop and our hotel has free wifi. We'll see if I can get anything written. As always, any tips re Ottawa bookstores is welcome. We're right downtown this time, so I plan to do a top to bottom bookstore walkabout over the weekend.

Ken Epp, sponsor of the BillC-484, the Unborn Victims of Crime Act, has been busy. Huge portions of his website are devoted to defending this private members bill, and he has composed a report defending it against the accusations made by people like Joyce Arthur. A recent Ottawa Citizen column by Mr. Epp is here, and here is the report.

I can't speak particularly effectively to most of the arguments he makes (short version: C-484 is not like any of those nasty U.S. Fetal Homicide Laws). If anyone else wants to, or to just blow off some estrogen, go ahead in the comments. But what I would be especially interested in is if anyone has considered the risk the bill would might pose for abortion providers (rather than pregnant women)?

C-484 refers to harm caused to the woman by a "third party" committing an offense against the unborn child by virtue of committing an offense against the woman. And whether or not an offense against the woman has been committed depends on whether the act was "against her will".

Could a woman decide retroactively that her abortion was carried out "against her will" and attempt to bring charges against her doctor?

You do read about this sort of thing on Lifesite: My Doctor Drugged Me And Took My Baby etc.

Update: Liberal MP Brent St. Denis has now introduced Bill C-543, intended to "counter" C-484 and fill in some of its loop-holes.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

And its got him lamenting invisible job losses. That's what happens when you study math too much, Andy. You start conjuring up Platonic Realms, and thinking they're real. Might as well cry over Pegasus the winged-horse.

As for the substance of the first post on his brand spanking new blog--that auto-subsidies are ineffective--well, what do you want Ontario to do, Andy? Cut them when various U.S. jurisdictions maintain them? Act like Peter Pureheart, pining for the free market of yore?

There's a difference between lost jobs and closed plants. So far we're just dealing with the former. Your brand of Capitalist Romanticism would lead to the latter.

Not surprising, I suppose, that those who will shoulder the real burden of the U.S. decision will be Canadian Inuit. While actually shooting the bears will remain legal, the fact that American hunters can no longer return home with a souvenir will likely squelch the allure of the hunt. Since acting as guides to U.S. trophy hunters provides much needed cash to Northern communities, it will be these communities that suffer as a result.

(Not that I oppose this part of the U.S. decision. I'm just saying...)

Prentice told Mike Duffy Live that a 10-year analysis showed that as many as three per cent of pumps were not accurate. Prentice is proposing changes to the way gas stations are monitored that could take effect as soon as this fall.

However, he did not specify how much money consumers might save due to the proposed bureaucratic changes.

Probably because mathematicians cannot conceive of a number that tiny.

So there you have it, folks. The Tories governing as though they had a Majority.

Ezra is having a good cry. All he's got out of the Tories on this issue was a free lunch of meeting sandwiches and rubber chicken! Apparently, his lawyer has been doing some research re Ezra's libel case and, I imagine, he too will be crying soon.

And they make half-decent pets. You set 'em loose and they catch their own food. However, they're not good around small children--they catch their own food--and they won't fetch the morning newspaper. They will crawl into your bed sometimes on cold nights, attracted by the smell of weak patheticmammal, and your body heat.

PS. I am obviously pro-reptile. They're what people would have evolved into if we'd had any class.

PPS. I'm offsite today. Play especially nice in comments. I won't be around to tell you when you're stuupid.

I've e-mailed Heritage Canada re what it takes to have a magazine de-listed. For while we might argue all day about whether the Human Rights complaints against Macleans are frivolous or substantial, it seems pretty clear that the magazine is both publishing offensive material and sucking off the tax-payer's titty. While we are all for Free Speech Heroes, we are also all against Corporate Welfare. No?

And the time might be especially ripe. The PAP has been undergoing a bit of soul-searching over the past couple of years, and one of the considerations behind this drive for change is

...as a motion (as opposed to a bill), it is what lawyers might call obiter dicta -- a non-binding statement of opinion, not a change in the law. Martin's motion is a call for a Parliamentary rebuke of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

What M-446 will amount to should it pass, and this is all it will amount to should it pass, is a verbal spanking for the CHRC at the hands of Parliament.

Which puts the motion's abysmal level of support in a whole new light: a mere four MPs have indicated they will vote in favor of M-446 and, arguably, one of these is on the list because he was conned by a Nazi. Not only will Parliament not repeal Section 13(1), they are afraid to even say anything nasty about it.

Scientists are working to produce a new "burpless" grass which will help cut Methane emissions from cattle. Work on this has been ongoing for several years now, and scientists also say they are close to developing a human equivalent in the form of a perfumed salad. Eat this stuff, and the other people on the bus will thank you when you fart.

According to the website of Global Village,Mr. Michael Chamas' company, he has also met recently with Quebec Tory candidate for Papineau Mustaque Sarker. His legal problems include weapons and tax charges.

(Note:picture from Cleavage-Gate, which is clearly the better of the two scandals)

Within Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois was at 37 per cent, well ahead of the Conservatives at 24 per cent and the Liberals at 23. The Green party had eight per cent, and the NDP seven.Why do all the Que. polls show the Tories up about 5% from Ipsos, while all the national polls show Libs/Tories pretty much tied? Yes I know the Quebec polls have a larger sample size, but don't all these national polls, done with different methodologies though smaller samples, have more or less the same weight statistically speaking via meta-analysis?

I'll tell you what, blo-hardzz. I'll debate you all, one or severally.

But I'd especially like to get a crack at Steyn. And it doesn't matter to me what we debate. It could be the state of Freedom in Canada. Or we could do something on Chinks, Japs, Wogs, and Gorks. I'd take the "pro" side, and Mark could do his normal routine and argue that unless white women surrender a few rights and start breeding again, all of these groups all basically a drag on Western civilization.

Now, Ezra is right in that I don't get the traffic of either of these three. But the black guy who says he's Jesus comes here and he backs me 100%. Its not how many read your blog, Ezra, its who you're readers are.

And other interesting bits from a speech/question & answer session given in Espanola, Ontario. Don't know if the writer cleaned-up his English, but Dion comes off as quite articulate. And if he can explain his carbon tax proposals this clearly, I don't think the Tories attempt to "pre-frame" the issue as being about hiking gas prices will play that well.

For one thing,

...sources say that the plan would not add more taxes to gasoline.The trick (for me) will be that the Lib environmental plan does not wind up being entirely urban-centric; that there is stuff in it that allows Dion and Co. to pitch it to Tory leaning rural/suburban ridings. For instance, their LEM proposal (Location Efficient Mortgage) is great for people living near a half-decent public transit system. If you don't, you're not likely to be impressed.

Update: Conservative Gerry Nichols makes a good point: everyone is proposing a carbon tax these days, including (most likely) the federal conservatives.

To nobody's surprise, Macleans magazine has chosen to weasel out of its earlier (alleged) promise offering complainants in the CHRC case against the magazine an opportunity to "have their say". You can link to their full response through the term "weasel" above, but I would like to make note of one statement in it:

Lets be clear on this. While I'm not a lawyer, the legal consensus seems to be that the case against Macleans is rather weak, and the complaint against them should probably never have been launched.

That said, the best outcome now would be if the CHRC follows the lead of the OHRC and decides essentially that, yeah, Steyn's writings are Islamophobic, and detrimental to the social order, and yeah Macleans has gone into the crapper ever since Kenneth Whyte and the other clowns from the National Post took over, but their horseshit does not meet the standard required to trigger a sanction under Canadian Human Rights legislation. And while the likes of Steyn or Ezra Levant only nominally qualify as journalists--they use, as Syed Soharwardy has argued, press freedoms to create hatred against Muslims--it is necessary to put up with their bullshit just in case a real journalist at a respectable publication should decide to tell some hard truths at some point in the distant future.

Give Macleans a stern lecture, but let 'em go, in other words.

PS. I note that Whyte does the Cattrall interview himself. Nice of the boss to take all the difficult assignments.

Not really true, given the makeup of Parliament--both the Bloc and NDP would have to be on board to bring down the Tories. But, if you want to buff up Dion's leadership credentials, why not imply that he's actually the guy calling the shots in the HOC? Kind of like making lemonaid out of lemons, especially since the media is actually starting to buy it.

PS. But did he really have to say "draws nigh"? Who does Iggy think he is? E.A. Poe?

All the elements of the great conspiracy theory are in place: everything was legal, no documents were withheld, Elections Canada broke its own rules, and so forth.

What I wonder most about is this statement:

Elections Canada didn’t bother to notify any Conservative officials or their legal team that they wanted additional documents.Surely EC must have detailed records of exactly what they requested when. If this is a lie, you would think that it is one easily uncovered.

I written here and here about the promise/dangers involved in mining methane hydrates, or "flammable ice", from under-sea deposits. On the one hand, you wind up with natural gas, a relatively clean burning fossil fuel. On the other hand, you risk triggering "massive landslides" on the ocean floor, thus setting methane, a potent if short-lived greenhouse gas, loose in the atmosphere.

Reading New Scientist on the weekend, I came across an intriguing reference:

Interesting in that a lot of new research done on the slide was in preparation for the opening of the Ormen Lange natural gas field off Norway. The upshot was that, in this location,

...the development of the...gas field would not significantly increase the risk of triggering a new slide.

So, there okay in Scotland, but in general: a risk of massive and sudden C02 emissions, and now Tsunamis. Can't we just try to, like, use less fuel?

PS. Tried desperately to find a picture of a Scotsman surfing in a kilt to illustrate this post. Unfortunately, Google images came up sorely lacking in this regard. Use your imagination, but don't peak!

Not so easy to wriggle out of that. As an interesting side-note, if the Macleans website is any indication, Steyn's piece originally appeared in the entertainment section, where the more recent articles concern Snoop Dog and where to place the string section in a modern orchestra.

(PS. Really, just the kind of thing that sometimes happens when you reach out to certain ethnic communities. But since the Navdeep Bains smear I haven't been able to work up much pity when the CPoC gets caught up in this kind of thing.)

Raised by Monks, later an MP for the New Democratic Party, Dennis Gruending writes Pulpit and Politics, a blog about the state of (what I would call) SoCon politics in Canada. A small-town Catholic himself, Mr. Gruending is far more sympathetic to their cause than I am. But that's fine. His latest is here, and an excellent piece on the spread of U.S. style Conservative think tanks can be found here.